Heh, when there are feats that can counter it and only need a few words added and one other line removed? That hasn't been discounted by Trevor's words.
How so? How is "That is not going to be changed in any future errata", interpretable? I'm actually curious at this point - how on earth can you read that line and still think it's going to change? I just want to hear the logic here.
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote, because I didn't reference Mage Slayer.
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote, because I didn't reference Mage Slayer.
Uhm Xan, mabey you should re-read the first part of the sentence "Mage slayer does have a drawback and that is not going to be changed in any future errata. "
You have been going on that the errata is going to change it in your favor, but here is a WOTC representative, who does indeed have the knowledge and authority to speak on the subject(as he was appointed by WOTC to do so), saying that Mage Slayer, the feat you have not been able to counter, will not be changed in errata.
In light of new information recently brought to light, I feel obliged to write.
Xan, you've said yourself that you will concede if WotC does not 'fix' Mage Slayer. Well, given official word from a duly appointed representative of WotC that there are no plans to 'fix' Mage Slayer, I think it's past time. I've met this fair and square. I deserve a concession from you.
If, in the future, WotC does 'fix' Mage Slayer, please feel free to retract your concession.
In light of new information recently brought to light, I feel obliged to write.
Xan, you've said yourself that you will concede if WotC does not 'fix' Mage Slayer. Well, given official word from a duly appointed representative of WotC that there are no plans to 'fix' Mage Slayer, I think it's past time. I've met this fair and square. I deserve a concession from you.
If, in the future, WotC does 'fix' Mage Slayer, please feel free to retract your concession.
Show me where I specifically said I would concede if that feat was fixed and not the discrepency it creates.
Xan. You need to reword this. As it is you are saying that you'll only concede if the feat is fixed.
The discrepency it creates is the point of the challange. The fact that the discrepency exists as a valid feat published by WOTC proves that it is indeed a valid form, even if it is an uncommon and rarely used form.
I gain the satisfaction of meeting your challenge.
Just indicate why the feat I presented does not meet the requirements, or concede that I've met your challenge.
I'm not conceding because the errata for the book just started to surface on 3/16/05.
I'm sure you will think up another reason not to concede, but ultimatly the reason it seems is that you are unwilling under any circumstances to do so. In that post quoted above you did not concede because you said the errata was not finished. It is now. Reasonably it is time to concede.
I thought you were supposed to stay out of this? The reason why I have such a hard time trying to even dignify your cognitive abilities is because of postings like this. You try to twist my words. I will not concede since I never said that the feat was wrong by having a drawback attached to it. That wasn't the problem to begin with. I refuse to concede when what I stated is not what you're trying to put in my mouth.
Ok. Now you're just being silly.
Anyhoo. If you really want to go on and say what your problem is or at least the one you are going to use now is, then please feel free to do so.
PS: Or you can admit that this whole thing is you being upset over your system not being used.
You specifically said, "I will concede if in fact the errata, when fully compiled, does not fix Mage Slayer or other feats in that book to counter the penalty."
1. The errata has been shown to be complete for the forseeable future.
2. The errata has not...
a) fixed Mage Slayer, nor has it
b) fixed other feats in that book to counter the penalty.
Ok. Now you're just being silly.
Anyhoo. If you really want to go on and say what your problem is or at least the one you are going to use now is, then please feel free to do so.
PS: Or you can admit that this whole thing is you being upset over your system not being used.
If I'm being silly, why are you trying to goad me?
Also, if this argument was purely predicated on the fact that I'm pissed that my system wasn't chosen, do you think I would have been able to swallow my ego to write a 300-page book for Gary Gygax when I'm bound by his rules for what I can write and have never published anything before hand?
How many RPG books or companies have you freelanced for?
Yeah, I went there...
Nah. I decided to come back. Wanna argue that too? We can start a whole new argument about whether it's acceptable to re-enter an argument after you've said you're done with it. It'll be fun!
Nah. I decided to come back. Wanna argue that too? We can start a whole new argument about whether it's acceptable to re-enter an argument after you've said you're done with it. It'll be fun!
If it will make you happy. Only problem is that I can't read your mind to know what you're thinking. Funny how nobody can do that yet people try putting words in the mouths of others, eh?
A few words of reminder to all: Keep it civil.
I remain civil so long as people don't twist my words or try to coerce me and allow their emotions to rule their heads.
Okay, since you insist I've somehow twisted your words or put words in your mouth, let's go back to the words that actually did come out of your mouth.
You specifically said, "I will concede if in fact the errata, when fully compiled, does not fix Mage Slayer or other feats in that book to counter the penalty." That is a direct quote from one of your posts, Xan.
Let's look at that.
1. The errata has been shown to be complete for the forseeable future.
2. The errata has not...
a) fixed Mage Slayer, nor has it
b) fixed other feats in that book to counter the penalty.
What am I missing?
You specifically said, "I will concede if in fact the errata, when fully compiled, does not fix Mage Slayer or other feats in that book to counter the penalty." That is a direct quote from one of your posts, Xan.
Let's look at that.
1. The errata has been shown to be complete for the forseeable future.
2. The errata has not...
a) fixed Mage Slayer, nor has it
b) fixed other feats in that book to counter the penalty.
What am I missing?
That WotC not only updates things sporadically and more than once over a period of months, but the most important promise that WotC and Jonathan Tweet gave when d20 came out.
That isn't even a complete or proper sentence. If I try to respond to it, I will certainly be accused of twisting your words. Can you please rephrase so I can understand your point?
One of the criteria for this challenge was that the feat had to have been a feat published by WotC for the 3.5e. The presumption, I suppose, is that when it comes to D&D3.5e system, WotC is the clear and final authority. That seems entirely logical and fair, and we all agreed that it was a fair requirement.
However, when presented with a feat published by that very organization, you insist that an errata that you have no evidence is forthcoming will resolve the matter in your favour.
You know, Xan. It would not be unreasonable for a person to infer from this that you believe even WotC themselves, the clear and final authority on all matters D&D, are wrong.
That isn't even a complete or proper sentence. If I try to respond to it, I will certainly be accused of twisting your words. Can you please rephrase so I can understand your point?
The reason that one could get from this to "feats can't have irreversible drawbacks" is that drawbacks have the inherent trait of reducing effectiveness in some field. Now, if you have an Eldrich Knight that takes Mage Slayer, he can always take Practiced Spellcaster or buy some orange ioun stones, and he'll be fine. However, a tiefling who hates mages (and so takes Mage Slayer) will find himself unable to use his innate darkness ability, and will have no way to rectify the issue. Yes, this is minor, but other more serious cases exist. Drawbacks that one cannot compensate for restrict freedom of class and/or racial choices, all due to a single feat.
Anyway, I think this is the reasoning that's going on here. Xan, did I mis-understand at all?
No, that's pretty much it.
The d20 system was to replace the bulky and restrictive 2nd ed. D&D because it limited players to specific roles. Prestige classes, feats, and open multiclassing, were to allow players to create their own unique character concepts and still allow the system to handle them without breaking under the stress. Remember, in 2nd ed. humans were not allowed to multiclass and demihumans could only take certain multiclass options dependent on their race. In lieu of this, the d20 system allows you to create prestige classes that have racial/regional/cultural components. Feats have few regional/cultural restrictions and are few in number when compared to those available to the general public.
Without methods to compensate for the drawbacks of Mage Slayer and its two chained feats, the following classes would be crippled if the feats were chosen:
Warmage
Sorcerer
Ranger
Cleric
Paladin
Wizard
Hunter of the Dead (PrC)
Those are just seven that I can come up with off the top of my head. Six are core classes.
Worse yet, I can name several roles where those feats would work to the aforementioned classes' advantage. Keep in mind that min/maxing was part of the design principle they used in creating d20. Then again, so was the ability to play previously unheard of combinations, such as the half-orc paladin.
I'd hate for Xan to forget what he's trying to defend himself against.
Challenge Requirements
A. From an official WOTC 3.5 source.
B. Contains a specific benefit to the character possessing that feat.
C. Contains a specific penalty to the character possessing that feat.
E. That penalty must not be something that can be completely negated. However if the ability penalized is not used that does not count as being negated because the penalty could arise later in game play.
The Challenger
Mage Slayer
Prerequisite: Spellcraft 2 ranks, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on Will saving throws. Spellcasters you threaten may not cast defensively (they automatically fail their Concentration checks to do so), but they are aware that they cannot cast defensively while being threatened by a character with this feat.
Special: Taking this feat reduces your caster level for all your spells and spell-like abilities by 4.
This is what I'm referring to. You all are so fixated on bringing me down any way you can that if you win this, you feel that it invalidates my argument's core. Go back and re-examine everything before you. It's not about Mage Slayer, it's not about what you use for the PSCS, it's always been about how the system operates and what we were promised. You are an extension of that promise and I hold you to it.
Hey, wait a minute. Slow down, everyone.
Enzo: If Xan concedes on the point of this specific challenge, that is, to find a feat that meets the conditions specified, do you feel that it would invalidate his appraisal of feats in general?
Xan: If Enzo explicitly states that his submission does not bear upon the more general d20 rules issue, would you consider the possibility that he was telling the truth about his lack of ulterior motives?
This is critical to the discussion. If Enzo is inserting himself into the discussion merely for the challenge of finding a feat satisfying the previously discussed criteria, then he should have no problem with distancing himself from the more fundamental discussion. However, if everyone is attempting to argue about the fundamental discussion, we should drop the topic of the feat challenge; it is only tangentially related, and most of the posts about it are ignoratio elenchi (that is, unrelated to the issue).
Enzo: If Xan concedes on the point of this specific challenge, that is, to find a feat that meets the conditions specified, do you feel that it would invalidate his appraisal of feats in general?
Xan: If Enzo explicitly states that his submission does not bear upon the more general d20 rules issue, would you consider the possibility that he was telling the truth about his lack of ulterior motives?
This is critical to the discussion. If Enzo is inserting himself into the discussion merely for the challenge of finding a feat satisfying the previously discussed criteria, then he should have no problem with distancing himself from the more fundamental discussion. However, if everyone is attempting to argue about the fundamental discussion, we should drop the topic of the feat challenge; it is only tangentially related, and most of the posts about it are ignoratio elenchi (that is, unrelated to the issue).
Do I feel it would invalidate his appraisal of feats in general? That's a loaded question. Let's just say that my feelings are my own, that I have said I will not argue beyond the point of the specific challenge, and that I will stand by that. If Xan concedes this specific challenge, I will remove myself from this discussion without offering any opinion regarding Xan's appraisal of feats in general. One condition. Xan cannot later withdraw his concession on this specific challenge without inviting me back to re-debate that specific issue.
Xan, I've said from my very first post that I am responding specifically to your challenge, the challenge I just reiterated. I have not been vague or unclear about what I'm debating or challenging. If you are not willing to discuss the Challenge any further, then withdraw it. Then you can argue systems freely without the encumbrance it has become.
In light of Eco's offer, and my evil mood, let's say that if you concede, I walk away. If you won't concede, or if you just withdraw the challenge, I might feel like sticking around, just for fun.
Now, we can lay this argument to rest....
Let's look at what you said, Enzo, and then we'll look at Sage Advice from Dragon #332...
Despite the feat's name, the benefits apply against both arcane and divine spell casters -- this feat isn't specifically intended for use by divine casters against arcane casters.
Flavor text does apply. I win.
A little late with that last-ditch rebuttal.
Xan is bringing up something he said earlier, that "Mage Slayer" doesn't count as a drawback because, although it incurs a penalty to the character's caster level, no spellcaster is allowed to take it because it's an anti-spellcaster feat. The flavor text of feats that use Mage Slayer as a prerequisite cite the character's hatred of spellcasters.
Enzo responded by saying that it's entirely within the scope of the feat to say that one spellcaster could use the feat against another, saying that a cleric could use it against mages, or a sorcerer against druids.
Hell, even a sorcerer might find it useful in fighting other sorcerers.
And now, Dragon 322 confirms that "the feat" (do we even know that the feat in question is Mage Slayer?) is not limited to either arcane or divine spellcasters, but could be used theoretically by either. I think that the article actually proves Enzo's point- that an arcane or divine spellcaster could quite easily take this feat and suffer the drawback.
And, of course, the crushing rebuttal: "Flavor text applies. I win." However, this article in no way confirms your idea that flavor text is rules-binding. Not even by some misinterpretation of the text. "Flavor text applies. I win" isn't even an argument. If there were something that could actually be proven here, I would expect more of a response than "this out-of-context sentence stands for itself and, despite in no way corroborating my contentions, where I have them, I hold this quote to turn this entire debate around."
That book came out seven months ago. Five months ago, they put out the errata, designed to fix any problems or holes in the rules. They made no move to change anything about Mage Slayer.
I stress this last point, because it really, honestly, should put this entire thing to rest: The facts remain that a WotC representative, as authoritative a response as we're likely to see, has confirmed that Mage Slayer has a drawback and that is not going to be changed in any future errata. The Shadow Weave stuff also has drawbacks and no plans have been announced to have errata for them either. So those are good examples of what we have printed that have drawbacks as well. Done. Not only has Wizards stated that both Mage Slayer and Shadow Weave have drawbacks (almost unbelievably using the exact "drawback" terminology of this debate), but the company has suggested that there are plenty of others. The end.
I haven't seen anything worthy of thread-closing. We want to close threads as rare as possible, and just when it's out of control flaming sorta stuff.
This thread has been rather civil, and if people want to keep posting politely, I can live with it. If you want the thread to end, however, I have one super-secret suggesstion:
Stop posting to it!!
Anyway, if people want to keep civily discussing things, go right ahead. Personally, I think the matter was answered a whole heck of a lot of pages back. That doesn't mean I should drop the moderator hammer and close it just because I personally think an argument keeps dragging on when it should have been left for dead months ago. That is a pretty clear abuse of power.
Spellcsasters you threaten find it difficult ot cast defensively.
Prerequistie: Combat Reflexes.
Benefit: Any spellcaster you threaten in melee takes a penalty on Concentration checks made to cast defensively equal to 1/2 your level.
You're right...there's nothing wrong with Mage Slayer since a 1st level character can't take it...oh wait, they can....
Oh, and before I forget...any feat that trumps an Epic level feat is broken, regardless of its edition. If you apply the 3.5 changes for the ELH and extrapolate that out...how would that be any different?
Spellcsasters you threaten find it difficult ot cast defensively.
Prerequistie: Combat Reflexes.
Benefit: Any spellcaster you threaten in melee takes a penalty on Concentration checks made to cast defensively equal to 1/2 your level.
You're right...there's nothing wrong with Mage Slayer since a 1st level character can't take it...oh wait, they can....
Okay, so that's 3rd level vs. 21st level... still a huge difference...
And how is it that it's okay for two feats to be used to prove me wrong, but the one that I've found to be more powerful than an epic equivalent is pulling something out of nowhere?
It seems relevant to point out that Mage Slayer has a drawback, Spellcasting Harrier does not. Perhaps that was intended to be a balancing factor between the two.
Regarding the ELH, try looking up Epic Weapon Focus. Then compare it with 3.5's Greater Weapon Focus. Things have shifted between editions.
Flavor text does apply. I win.
Just curious, why didn't you also quote the question that prompted the response you quoted?
Because the question asked why they were penalized for taking the feat when they aren't arcane spellcasters. However, flavor text does matter because the ruling made states that the feat is not intended for spellcasters of any kind, which bears upon my original objection to your use of Mage Slayer.
The psionics handbook has feats that are designed to be used against psionicists, but not by psionicists.
For example:
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all saving throws to resist powers.
The benefit of this feat applies only to psionic powers and psi-like abilities. This is an exception to the psionics-magic transparency rule.
Special: You cannot take or use this feat if you have the ability to use powers (if you have a power point reserve or psi-like abilities).*
The Expanded Psionics Handbook came out in April of last year, while Complete Arcane came out in November. That's plenty of time for the writers of Complete Arcane to know about this way of doing things. But they chose to write the feat in such a way that it allows spellcasters to take it, albeit with a hefty drawback. If Mage Slayer were designed to not be usable by spellcasters, the writers would have included mechanics to actually make that true. But they didn't. The rules of the feat are the only binding part of the mechanics. Descriptions summarize what the feat does and what the character in the game uses it for, but they do not impact the implementation of the feat in the game.
Rhys, why are you ignoring Dragon Magazine's Sage Advice column?
Normally I wouldn't step in on this one - but there's a logical fallacy here. As the counter-arguement says:
"is not specifically intended"
This is *not* a prohibition against the action.
This is much like saying "Cookie dough is not specifically intended to be eaten raw." or "Computers are not specifically intended to play video games on." There's plenty of opening left there for the phrase: "But it can be if you want." That's just simply how the English language works. The arguement doesn't hold water because of the way it's phrased.
She isn't ignoring it.
The reason she isn't talking about it right now is because she responded to it in her post right after you brought it up.
"is not specifically intended"
This is *not* a prohibition against the action.
This is much like saying "Cookie dough is not specifically intended to be eaten raw." or "Computers are not specifically intended to play video games on." There's plenty of opening left there for the phrase: "But it can be if you want." That's just simply how the English language works. The arguement doesn't hold water because of the way it's phrased.
Are we speaking of inductive or deductive arguments? There's no fallacy here as an inductivce argument.
Oh, I may want to tell you that it will require my death to make me back down on this. I will never concede.
And before you misquote me and think I'm somehow insane, I'll explain this....
You have not proven me wrong. Your evidence is weaker than water soup. You will never prove me wrong beause there is more material to back me than you, if this is not the case, prove me wrong. One feat does not prove me wrong. Give me more than this, otherwise your cause, not mine, is lost. I say this because I've examined the flaws very carefully and have people urging me to write a letter to WotC for justification for such blatant flaws.
As I stated before, I am right and you are wrong. Prove that I'm wrong. Mage Slayer isn't enough because it is inherently flawed and I can prove it beyond a shadow of anything you can throw at me. If you don't believe me, let's play this out until you concede and understand that I know more about systems design than you. That's the true heart of this argument, my abilities vs. yours.
Opinions about play style cannot be either right or wrong. They are opinions.
I see nothing wrong with feats that have drawbacks. I'd allow the "spell-touched" feats from Unearthed Arcana (many of which have drawbacks). I guess you wouldn't. That's your problem, not mine, and not anyone else's.
Earlier, you asked for a feat that was a WotC which fulfilled certain conditions. When Mage Slayer was presented, which fit your criteria, you decryed it as flawed. Maybe it is- I don't like the feat. But it is a Wizard of the Coast 3.5 feat, technically fulfilling your requirements. Now, does any of this matter? No. It's just fulfilling your conditions in that regard. You said name one. They did.
This is all irrelevant though in the big picture. The big problem here is that you've decided no one else can be right who doesn't do things your way.
But you know what? They're not going to use your system. There will be feats with drawbacks. Life goes on. You didn't lose any money on it. You didn't loose out on a career or something. It's only a game.
Wrong, why don't you go learn logic and see that one is not enough to kill my argument. Also, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say about the feats.
I see nothing wrong with feats that have drawbacks. I'd allow the "spell-touched" feats from Unearthed Arcana (many of which have drawbacks). I guess you wouldn't. That's your problem, not mine, and not anyone else's.
Earlier, you asked for a feat that was a WotC which fulfilled certain conditions. When Mage Slayer was presented, which fit your criteria, you decryed it as flawed. Maybe it is- I don't like the feat. But it is a Wizard of the Coast 3.5 feat, technically fulfilling your requirements. Now, does any of this matter? No. It's just fulfilling your conditions in that regard. You said name one. They did.
This is all irrelevant though in the big picture. The big problem here is that you've decided no one else can be right who doesn't do things your way.
But you know what? They're not going to use your system. There will be feats with drawbacks. Life goes on. You didn't lose any money on it. You didn't loose out on a career or something. It's only a game.
It's apparent that none of you got the point of the argument if you think that I said there's no animal as a feat with drawbacks....
As someone who has learned logic, a singe case disproves an absolute assumption everytime. For example:
- Feats never have drawbacks.
- Feat A has a drawback.
- Therefore, the statement "Feats never have drawbacks" is false.
Absolutes are extremely easy to disprove that way. (I can dig out the whole symbolic logic proof if you want, but it's pretty standard stuff.)
However, probably a clearer presentation is:
- Well-designed feats never have drawbacks.
- Feat A has a drawback.
- Feat A is a well-designed.
- Therefore, the statement "Well-designed feats never have drawbacks" is false.
In that case, you can take issue with the assumption that "Feat A is well-designed." and that's a valid way to attack the above argument. To just throw Feat A out, or say that "one case doesn't prove me wrong" is invalid reasoning.
Alternatively, you could say "Most feats do not have drawbacks", but that doesn't really sound like your position if I understand you correctly. But with that statement, a single case does not disprove it. If you want to support an absolute, however, logic dictates that a single counterexample disproves the statement.
Ok, this crosses the line. The argument has been civil, but this is utterly uncalled for. If you want to start throwing around "I'm a better designer than you, nyay nyah", then you can take the argument elsewhere. I do not want that on these forums. An argument about whether your abilities as a designer are better than everyone else is not only absurd, but pure hubris. It will get this thread closed.
I will not tolerate a pissing contest about "I'm better than you" like some 8-year old on the playground. Keep the argument to the feats in question, ok? 'Nuff said.
:shock:
So far we've been talking about feats that, for whatever reason, provide some sort of drawback that's hard to work around. However, the discussion of drawbacks seems, to me, to actually be about drawbacks with more effect on actions than statistics. We have the Doomguard refusal to accept healing and the Athar refusal to accept gods-given spells. We have the Bleaker bipolarism and the Ring-Giver altruism. These are all states of mind, which result by their strength in an alteration to game mechanics. Feats such as Mage-Slayer are not similar at all!
I realize that I brought this up towards the beginning of this discussion, but I'd like to do so again. The Vow feats, from the Book of Exalted Deeds, represent powers gained by one's willingness to obey Good precepts despite the hardships that these beliefs cause. In my mind, these match much more closely with the discussion; they have drawbacks which one is unlikely to work around, and benefits that are the reward for sticking to one's convictions. Yes, they are more strict about infractions, but would one who truly believs in his faction's philosophy go against it and make this an issue? Besides, this seems to me to be the only currently implemented rule that is, flavor-wise, similar to the mechanic at discussion.
I seem to recall this line of reasoning being discounted early on, and I've forgotten why. Anyone care to refresh my memory?